Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No we don't need a court to know something is wrong, and you can also read the resolutions that imply it was legal. Hell, it being legal still wouldn't make it "right".
Is OJ?
Really, no, you can't. Not honestly. Sure, someone will try to convince you of that, but it would be a disahonest effort. We did not have the security council mandate, and we were not facing imminent threat. Coalition of the willing means we were outside the UN. So, no, no one can honestly read it differently.
Like someone convinced you it was illegal...or you convinced yourself. There are interpretations to be made due to the widely varying resolutions that apply. That's why courts decide if someone has broken a law, not the average Joe, not the police, not Judge Dredd.
No, the text is relatively clear. The courts decide if we ahve evidence that you were going 150 mph in 65mph zone. Not rather going 150 mph in 65 mph is speeding. Here we have the document (the speed limit) and we have the our actions (the clocked speed). So we have the evidence and the law. As it won't go to court, we can, should, and have looked at both. You have suspend disbelief not to see it.
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?
I have not suspended disbelief. There are UN resolutions dating back to just after the first Gulf War that can be interpreted to have authorized the invasion. Simple. Regardless, it was a bad idea, though not illegal.
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?
No, they cannot. Not remotely. You do have to suspend disbleif to believe that they do. I again point to the fact that the definition of the coalition of the willing itself means outside the UN. You cannot argue, honestly, that the invasion was authorized by the UN.
The authorization of force using military means was authorized under UN Resolution 1441. It's fairly well documented as are the prior and subsequent resolutions with regards to Iraq.
The authorization of force using military means was authorized under UN Resolution 1441. It's fairly well documented as are the prior and subsequent resolutions with regards to Iraq.
you are wasting your breath (metaphorically). He doesn't want to believe, and so he doesn't.
I clearly and succinctly said it authorized military force. At least pay attention.No. That is incorrect. It did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
You want to live in your own reality - that's cool. But there are multiple resolutions that identify exactly was was voted on at the UN, and who authorized it (Security Council). I'm not going to argue settled and agreed upon history because you don't want to accept it as reality... it's there for all to read.Not only that, but it was not that the US could act when the US saw fit. A UN resolution is decided by the UN, not the US. Once the US said we will do it without the UN, with a coalition of the willing, they were no longer operating under any UN resolutions. They acted outside the UN, on their own authority, violating their agreement.
cpwill said:you are wasting your breath (metaphorically). He doesn't want to believe, and so he doesn't.
The US and UK governments, stated that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion. The War was ok because we were protecting Kuwait from an invasion 14 years prior?
I clearly and succinctly said it authorized military force. At least pay attention.
You want to live in your own reality - that's cool. But there are multiple resolutions that identify exactly was was voted on at the UN, and who authorized it (Security Council). I'm not going to argue settled and agreed upon history because you don't want to accept it as reality... it's there for all to read.
No, they cannot. Not remotely. You do have to suspend disbleif to believe that they do. I again point to the fact that the definition of the coalition of the willing itself means outside the UN. You cannot argue, honestly, that the invasion was authorized by the UN.
It's only unreasonable to you in your reality. To the rest of us, it's not only reasonable but historical fact - settled history. Sure it went around the Constitution... but that doesn't make the authorization of force any less real.Not honest ones. And while you may want to push buttons, and more power to you, the debate is about whether the invasion was authorized by UN resolution 1441. Such cannot b argued reasonably.
And you have to stick your fingers in your ears and sing the National Anthem to ignore that they can be interpreted to do just that. I'm not saying it's a correct interpretation, I'm saying it's an interpretation. This dissonance is why courts exist. :shrug:
It's only unreasonable to you in your reality. To the rest of us, it's not only reasonable but historical fact - settled history. Sure it went around the Constitution... but that doesn't make the authorization of force any less real.
No. I provide evidence. We can make things up I suppose, say any while thing, and then say charge me. I suppose that works to some extent. But agian, Bush moved outside the UN. A coalition of the willing is by definition outside the UN. So, no, there is no disagreement of the type you suggest. If the US was within the UN, there would have been no coalition.
Oh say can you seeeeee........
I guess that's the best you can do. Much easier than addressing the link or the point. :coffeepap
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?